Most Viewed Stories
Most Commented Stories
Most Recommended Stories
Save & Share this Article
City sparks vendor lawsuit
Comments 0 | Recommend 0In the legal realm, the city started the new year with fireworks - literally.
Just days short of Jan. 1, the city found itself embroiled in litigation regarding fireworks, first in state district court and now in federal court.
This was sparked by the lawsuit that Mr. W. Fireworks Inc. of Atascosa County filed against the city Dec. 19. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was subsequently secured from the state 107th District Court against the city.
The TRO stopped the city from interfering with the company's sale of fireworks within 5,000 feet of the city limits.
The firm claims that city Fire Marshall Ben Nunez had relayed to its representatives that the company would be subject to violations if fireworks were sold within the limitation. Court records reflect that violators could be subject to fines up to $2,000.
The firm maintains that at least four other firework vendors are operating within 5,000 feet of the city limits, yet the city was not going after them.
According to court records, the city maintains that the other vendors are "grandfathered," because they were in existence when the city ordinance on firework sales regarding the 5,000 feet was passed. However, the firm counters that the city ordinance does not contain grandfather provisions.
The firm alleges that the city's position toward it is unconstitutional and discriminatory.
On Dec. 29, the day a hearing was scheduled in state court to see if the city would be permanently stopped or not from regulating the 5,000 feet benchmark as to this firm, the city moved the case to federal court in Brownsville because the firm alleges that the city is violating its due process under the 14th Amendment.
In its lawsuit filed in mid-December, the firm sought a declaration from the state court as to whether the 5,000 feet provision applies to it. It also seeks court costs and attorney fees.
It could not be ascertained if the firm's sales were affected because of the litigation. Attorney Tom Fleming, who represents the firm, declined to comment.
See archived 'Local' stories »
We want our site to be a place where people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities. We built this for you. Please take care of it. Tolerate broad thinking, but take action against obscene or hateful material. Make it a credible and safe place worth preserving and sharing.
